Alle Publikationen

  • Erweiterte Suche öffnen

Treffer: 3
  • <<
  • 1
  • 2019

  • Barrett, Lisa Feldman; Adolphs, Ralph; Marsella, Stacy; Martinez, Aleix M.; Pollak, Seth D. (2019): Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges to Inferring Emotion From Human Facial Movements. In: Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society 20 (1), S. 1-68. DOI: 10.1177/1529100619832930

    DOI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640856 

    Abstract: It is commonly assumed that a person's emotional state can be readily inferred from his or her facial movements, typically called emotional expressions or facial expressions. This assumption influences legal judgments, policy decisions, national security protocols, and educational practices; guides the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illness, as well as the development of commercial applications; and pervades everyday social interactions as well as research in other scientific fields such as artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and computer vision. In this article, we survey examples of this widespread assumption, which we refer to as the common view, and we then examine the scientific evidence that tests this view, focusing on the six most popular emotion categories used by consumers of emotion research: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. The available scientific evidence suggests that people do sometimes smile when happy, frown when sad, scowl when angry, and so on, as proposed by the common view, more than what would be expected by chance. Yet how people communicate anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise varies substantially across cultures, situations, and even across people within a single situation. Furthermore, similar configurations of facial movements variably express instances of more than one emotion category. In fact, a given configuration of facial movements, such as a scowl, often communicates something other than an emotional state. Scientists agree that facial movements convey a range of information and are important for social communication, emotional or otherwise. But our review suggests an urgent need for research that examines how people actually move their faces to express emotions and other social information in the variety of contexts that make up everyday life, as well as careful study of the mechanisms by which people perceive instances of emotion in one another. We make specific research recommendations that will yield a more valid picture of how people move their faces to express emotions and how they infer emotional meaning from facial movements in situations of everyday life. This research is crucial to provide consumers of emotion research with the translational information they require.

  • 2016

  • Carton, Daniel; Nitsch, Verena; Meinzer, Dominik; Wollherr, Dirk (2016): Towards assessing the human trajectory planning horizon. In: PLoS one 11 (12)

    Abstract: Mobile robots are envisioned to cooperate closely with humans and to integrate seamlessly into a shared environment. For locomotion, these environments resemble traversable areas which are shared between multiple agents like humans and robots. The seamless integration of mobile robots into these environments requires accurate predictions of human locomotion. This work considers optimal control and model predictive control approaches for accurate trajectory prediction and proposes to integrate aspects of human behavior to improve their performance. Recently developed models are not able to reproduce accurately trajectories that result from sudden avoidance maneuvers. Particularly, the human locomotion behavior when handling disturbances from other agents poses a problem. The goal of this work is to investigate whether humans alter their trajectory planning horizon, in order to resolve abruptly emerging collision situations. By modeling humans as model predictive controllers, the influence of the planning horizon is investigated in simulations. Based on these results, an experiment is designed to identify, whether humans initiate a change in their locomotion planning behavior while moving in a complex environment. The results support the hypothesis, that humans employ a shorter planning horizon to avoid collisions that are triggered by unexpected disturbances. Observations presented in this work are expected to further improve the generalizability and accuracy of prediction methods based on dynamic models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

  • Koppula, Hema S.; Saxena, Ashutosh (2016): Anticipating Human Activities Using Object Affordances for Reactive Robotic Response. In: IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 38 (1), S. 14-29. DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2015.2430335

    DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26656575 

    Abstract: An important aspect of human perception is anticipation, which we use extensively in our day-to-day activities when interacting with other humans as well as with our surroundings. Anticipating which activities will a human do next (and how) can enable an assistive robot to plan ahead for reactive responses. Furthermore, anticipation can even improve the detection accuracy of past activities. The challenge, however, is two-fold: We need to capture the rich context for modeling the activities and object affordances, and we need to anticipate the distribution over a large space of future human activities. In this work, we represent each possible future using an anticipatory temporal conditional random field (ATCRF) that models the rich spatial-temporal relations through object affordances. We then consider each ATCRF as a particle and represent the distribution over the potential futures using a set of particles. In extensive evaluation on CAD-120 human activity RGB-D dataset, we first show that anticipation improves the state-of-the-art detection results. We then show that for new subjects (not seen in the training set), we obtain an activity anticipation accuracy (defined as whether one of top three predictions actually happened) of 84.1, 74.4 and 62.2 percent for an anticipation time of 1, 3 and 10 seconds respectively. Finally, we also show a robot using our algorithm for performing a few reactive responses.

  • <<
  • 1